What's new
By:

Trump Dictatorship and All Things Politics

Bucknutz said:
Another miserable person. Who are you? Just downvotes everyone, has nothing ever positive to say. Why are you so miserable?
Click to expand...
This is not positive thread - see the title -, we discuss about all awful things your orange clown is doing. Like pardoning violent criminals who attacked police for example. Please enlighten me what is so positive about it?
 
MVP said:
This is not positive thread - see the title -, we discuss about all awful things your orange clown is doing. Like pardoning violent criminals who attacked police for example. Please enlighten me what is so positive about it?
Click to expand...
Never happened. The violent criminals who attacked police spent 4 years in prison and recent had sentences commuted. It was those who nonviolently strolled through the Capitol building who had offences pardoned, and even they don't get their 4 years back or their criminal records wiped clean.

The pardoning of violent criminals was done by the last guy. Before leaving office, Biden pardoned or commuted sentences of almost every convict on Federal death row. All of them were violent. Spare me your outrage over Trump letting trespassers off after 4 years of prison.
 
I heard this morning that Trump wanted to rename the Gulf of Mexico after himself, but the Bay of Pigs was already taken…

Also, wouldn’t the name of the thread title need to be changed to turn this thread into a joy fest? Dictatorships and the United States are usually thought of as mutually exclusive, and very bad when they are not. Still, I can experience happiness with or without Trump. But not in this thread….
 

President Donald Trump’s pulling of security protection for three of his former top aides — who have all faced credible threats to their lives — has been slammed and condemned as “vindictive” by the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

In a column published online Thursday, the newspaper’s board acknowledged “the possibility of falling out of President Trump’s good graces is an occupational hazard for good people who serve in his Administration.”
“But this looks like a new low,” it added.

Trump has nixed protection for his onetime national security adviser John Bolton, his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his former Iran envoy Brian Hook.

Bolton, who was the target of an Iranian assassination plot, has become a fierce critic of his former boss. Trump, meanwhile, has retaliated with insults.

But despite the clear animosity between the pair, the Journal’s board argued that “decisions about security details are supposed to be made based on neutral assessments of the danger, not some vindictive whim.”

Bolton himself has admitted he was “disappointed but not surprised” by Trump’s move against him.

“Notwithstanding my criticisms of President [Joe] Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend that protection to me in 2021,” Bolton wrote on X, formerly Twitter, adding: “The American people can judge for themselves which President made the right call.”

CNN on Thursday quoted one former intelligence official as warning: “Somebody is going to get killed, there is a credible and serious Iranian threat against Pompeo and Bolton.” Another suggested Trump was acting out of “pure spite and pettiness.”
 
All the best people...

Senate Republicans seem determined to elevate Donald Trump’s nominee to one of the most powerful positions in government despite more reporting around his alleged rampant abuse of women and alcohol.

Having declined to take seriously their obligation to investigate reports of his unfitness, Republicans on the committee are now refusing to credit named witnesses who are offering them credible information by taking the position that everything negative disclosed about their man is by definition a lie.

Last week at his confirmation hearing, Hegseth stated under oath that every single allegation of misconduct was an “anonymous smear.” One of those “anonymous smears” came from his own mother. And now Danielle Diettrich Hegseth, his former sister-in-law, “submitted a sworn statement to senators on Tuesday that accused Mr. Hegseth … of being so ‘abusive’ toward his second wife that she once hid in a closet from him and had a safe word to call for help if she needed to get away from him.” Diettrich Hegseth says she spoke with FBI agents during Hegseth’s background investigation, but her information didn’t make its way into the report received on the Hill.

According to the Times, the former wife of Hegseth’s brother filed this affidavit describing the future head of the Pentagon as having exhibited “erratic and aggressive” behavior that caused his then-wife to fear for her safety. That document, reviewed by the Armed Services Committee and the Times, contains yet more allegations that Hegseth “frequently drank to excess both in public and private, including on one occasion … when he was wearing his military uniform.” It further alleged that his second wife hid from him in her closet, and that he believed women should not work or be allowed to vote.

Not one thing about these new allegations is surprising. The New Yorker, the New York Times, and other media outlets have reported consistently and broadly about Hegseth’s alcoholism and mistreatment of women, as well as his revanchist views about Muslims and frequent, public blackout drinking. There is also an allegation of sexual assault that was never charged but was reported and investigated, around which both parties have signed a nondisclosure agreement. What is, frankly, remarkable about Diettrich Hegseth’s new allegations is that she has affixed her name to them, and that they are in the possession of the FBI and the Senate. All of this would have, in a saner time, ended the nominee’s chances at confirmation.
His ex-wife Samantha allegedly told the FBI that “He drinks more often than he doesn’t.”

But what is even more staggering is that in the face of this new information, the decision has been taken by Senate Republicans to discredit it, ignore it, and to charge ahead with a confirmation in spite of it.

Let us be clear. Yet again. Senate confirmation hearings are not criminal trials. This is, fundamentally, a job interview to determine a nominee’s fitness for office. There is no “American presumption of innocence,” and there is no standard of proof that shifts a legal burden to the accuser to prove her claims. These confirmation hearings are systems created, at least in theory, to test facts and allegations and to ask questions about those allegations. The hearings, put simply, are meant to be directed at learning the truth. Yet despite the U.S. Senate’s awesome power to amass evidence, call witnesses, test allegations, and create a record, the Republicans of the Armed Services Committee have elected to dismiss every part of the new reporting as false. Senate Republicans are ignoring red-flag indicators and will not be able to profess surprise if more surfaces or the behaviors continue once Hegseth is in office.

If Republican senators were committed to fulfilling their obligation to advise and consent to President Trump’s nominees, they would want to know the truth; indeed they would insist upon it. At a minimum, it would be of interest to Republican members of the Armed Services Committee that the man who has been nominated to run the Defense Department is a known abuser of alcohol who is frequently abusive and threatening toward women. It increasingly appears that the campaign promise to “protect all women” can only be achieved by silencing them first.
 
Talk about “unmoored from reality”, lol. Wonder if they’ll introduce something similar in the US House? Thought we learned a lesson about legislating morality when prohibition failed….A Democrat, equal opportunity lunacy these days……

www.nbcnews.com

Mississippi lawmaker introduces 'Contraception Begins at Erection Act'

The bill, which is unlikely to pass, would make it unlawful for “a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.”
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Mississippi state Sen. Bradford Blackmon, a Democrat, introduced a bill this week that would seemingly ban men from masturbating or engaging in other sexual acts when they have no "intent to fertilize an embryo."

The bill, titled the "Contraception Begins at Erection Act," would make it unlawful for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

The bill, introduced Monday, would impose fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $10,000 for any subsequent offenses.

The bill is unlikely to pass the GOP-led Legislature, but if it does and is signed into law by Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, it would go into effect in July.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_2025-01-24-08-19-34-98_a23b203fd3aafc6dcb84e438dda678b6.jpg
 
Red said:
Talk about “unmoored from reality”, lol. Wonder if they’ll introduce something similar in the US House? Thought we learned a lesson about legislating morality when prohibition failed….A Democrat, equal opportunity lunacy these days……

www.nbcnews.com

Mississippi lawmaker introduces 'Contraception Begins at Erection Act'

The bill, which is unlikely to pass, would make it unlawful for “a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.”
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Mississippi state Sen. Bradford Blackmon, a Democrat, introduced a bill this week that would seemingly ban men from masturbating or engaging in other sexual acts when they have no "intent to fertilize an embryo."

The bill, titled the "Contraception Begins at Erection Act," would make it unlawful for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

The bill, introduced Monday, would impose fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $10,000 for any subsequent offenses.

The bill is unlikely to pass the GOP-led Legislature, but if it does and is signed into law by Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, it would go into effect in July.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that isn't an onion article someone accidently took seriously? Sounds ridiculous.
 
LogGrad98 said:
In the current state of our society, and given the economic realities of oligopolies dominating the American economy, I have no doubt Trump said the quiet part out loud again. This will cause pressure on prices to rise, companies with little competition will take full advantage and raise prices beyond that warranted by the tariff increases, exactly like they did when supply chain issues put pressure on prices and the Biden administration started ferreting out the companies that unfairly kept prices high through price fixing agreements and under the table shenanigans, which affected nearly the entirety of our food supply, and touched on most other parts of the economy as well. So now the billionaires whispering in Trump's ear are salivating at the opportunity to turn a 10% unnecessary tariff into a permanent 15% increase in prices to fund more stock buy-backs and drive their wealth even higher. All safe in the knowledge that, unlike the Biden administration, Trump's gub'mint won't do anything to stop them. So yeah, he said the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...
I hope Americans get what they voted for. I believe a good percentage of the electorate needs to be reminded that choosing the leadership of your country shouldn’t be based on WWE criteria; the candidate who is more fun to watch on teevee.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
It is from the Democrats. What did you expect? They are a ridiculous party.
Click to expand...
Republicans men are laughing everywhere, they know responsibility lies elsewhere…

www.propublica.org

Are Abortion Bans Across America Causing Deaths? The States That Passed Them Are Doing Little to Find Out.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t tracked the laws’ impacts, and most haven’t finished examining cases from the year the bans went into effect.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 
LogGrad98 said:
That would require a constitutional amendment, right? No way in hell that gets ratified. Now they are doing **** just to do ****. ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the constitution says about non consecutive terms or if it even says anything about the topic.
Might be some wording that could be misconstrued or something.
 
Red said:
Republicans men are laughing everywhere, they know responsibility lies elsewhere…

www.propublica.org

Are Abortion Bans Across America Causing Deaths? The States That Passed Them Are Doing Little to Find Out.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t tracked the laws’ impacts, and most haven’t finished examining cases from the year the bans went into effect.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
Click to expand...
Like I said, Democrats are not a serious party. One set of rules lets women kill their children. The other set of rules prohibits from women from killing their children. Which set of rules results in more kills? Is it the 'yes, killing is okay' set, or is it the 'no, killing is prohibited' set? Leave it up to the Democrat party to claim to not know.

Here is a general rule of thumb for you Red: If an article asks a question in the headline, the answer is 'no'.
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't know what the constitution says about non consecutive terms or if it even says anything about the topic.
Might be some wording that could be misconstrued or something.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. To the proposal, the wording of the US Constitution doesn't matter. The thing being proposed is a Constitutional Amendment. That means it changes whatever is currently in the US Constitution. It has zero chance of being ratified and is a waste of everyone's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top